The Occasion of the History. The Feast of Ahasuerus
and Vashti’s Rejection

Chap. 1:1–22

I. Ahasuerus assembles the
princes of his empire around him, and prepares a great feast, in which he
endeavours to show his power and glory. Vers.
1–8

1﻿Now [And] it came to pass [was] in
the days of
Ahasuerus [Achashverosh], (this is
Ahasuerus which reigned [the one
being king] from India [Hodu] even unto [and till] Ethiopia [Cush], over a hundred and seven
and twenty provinces,) 2﻿That
in those days when [as] the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom,
which was in
Shushan the palace,13﻿In the third year of his
reign, he made a feast﻿2
unto all his princes and his servants; the power﻿3
of Persia [Paras] and Media [Madai], the 4﻿nobles﻿4
and [the] princes
of the provinces, being
before him. When he showed the
riches of his glorious [the
glory of his] kingdom, and the
honour of his excellent [the
excellence of his] majesty, many days, even
a hundred and fourscore days. 5﻿And
when these days were
[had] expired,
the king made a feast﻿2
unto all the people that were
present [found] in Shushan the palace,1
both unto great and [to great and 6﻿even
to] small, seven days, in the
court of the garden of the king’s palace; Where
were white [linen], green [cotton], and blue
[violet] hangings,
fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to [on] silver rings and
pillars of marble: the
beds were of [there
were beds of] gold and silver, upon a pavement
of red [white] and blue [marble], and white [pearl], and black marble
[colored stone]. 7﻿And
they gave them [there
was a giving of] drink in vessels of gold, (the
vessels being [and the vessels were]
diverse one from another,) and royal wine in abundance, according to the state [hand] of the
king. 8﻿And
the drinking was
according to the law; none did compel: for so the king had appointed [ordained] to
[upon] all the officers [every great one]
of his house, that they should do [to do] according to every man’s pleasure.

II. Queen Vashti refuses to
appear before the king, and he is very much incensed thereat.
Verses 9–12

9﻿Also Vashti the
queen made a feast﻿2
for [of] the
women in the
royal house which belonged
to king Ahasuerus. 10﻿On
the seventh day, when [as] the
heart of the king was
merry [good] with [the] wine, he commanded [said to] Mehuman, Biztha,
Harbona, Bigtha, and Abagtha, Zethar, and Carcas, the seven chamberlains
[eunuchs] that served in the
presence of Ahasuerus the king, 11﻿To
bring Vashti the queen before the king, with
the crown royal [of royalty], to show the
people [peoples] and 12﻿the
princes her beauty: for she was
fair to look on [good of appearance]. But [And] the queen Vashti refused to
come at the
king’s commandment [word] [which was] by [the
hand of] his
[the] chamberlains [eunuchs] : therefore [and] was the king very wroth, and
his anger burned [heat devoured] in him.

III. In accordance with the
counsel of his wise men the queen is rejected by a public decree of the
king. Verses 13–22

13﻿Then [And] the
king said to the wise men,
which knew [knowers of ] the times, (for so was
the king’s manner [word] toward [before] all
that knew [knowers of] law and judgment: 14﻿And
the next unto him was
Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven princes of Persia
[Paras] and Media [Madai], which saw [seers of] the king’s face, and which sat [the sitters]
the first in the
kingdom); 15﻿What
shall we do [is there
to do] unto [in the case of]
the queen Vashti according to law, because [upon the fact that] she hath not
performed [done] the
commandment of the king Ahasuerus by [the
hand of] the chamberlains [eunuchs]? 16﻿And
Memucan answered [said] before the king and the princes, Vashti the queen
hath not done wrong to [upon] the king only, but [for] also to [upon] all the
princes, and to [upon] all the people [peoples] that are in all the 17﻿provinces of the king
Ahasuerus. For this
deed [word] of the queen shall come abroad [go forth] unto [upon] all [the]
women, so that they shall [to cause them
to] despise their husbands in their eyes, when it shall be reported [in
their saying], The king Ahasuerus commanded [said] Vashti the queen to be
brought [to bring] in 18﻿before
him, but [and] she came not. Likewise
shall the ladies
[princesses] of Persia [Paras] and Media [Madai] say this day unto all
the king’s
princes, which [who] have heard﻿5
of the deed
[word] of the queen. Thus [And] shall there
arise19﻿too
much [according to plenty] contempt and wrath. If it please [be
good upon] the king, let there
go [forth] a royal commandment [word] from [before] him, and let it be
written among the laws of the
Persians [Paras] and the
Medes [Madai], that [and let] it be not altered [not pass], That Vashti come
no more [not] before king Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate
[royalty] unto another [her neighbor] that is better than she. 20﻿And when the king’s decree
which he shall make shall be published [heard] throughout [in] all his
empire [kingdom], (for it is
great.) [and] all the wives [women] shall give to their husbands honour,
both to great and small. 21﻿And
the saying [word] pleased [was good in the eyes of] the king and the
princes; and the king did according to the
word of Memucan : 22﻿For
[And] he sent letters into [unto] all the
king’s provinces, into [unto] every province according to the writing﻿6
thereof, and to [unto] every people after their language, that every man
should bear rule [for every man to be prince] in his own house, and that it should be published
[spoken] according to the
language of every [his] people.

2
[Ver. 3.
מִשְׁתֶּה, a drinking, i.e., a banquet,
in which the wine was the principal feature, as represented freely on the
Assyrian monuments.—Tr.]

3
[Ver. 3.
חַיִל, military force.—Tr.]

4
[Ver. 3.
פַרְתְּמִים, a Persian word
Hebraized. As it is here in the “absolute form,” it does not qualify
“provinces” following, but stands as an official designation, probably of
civil rank at court.—Tr.]

5
[Ver. 18.
The English Version has unwarrantably transposed this clause (“which have
heard,” etc.),
which belongs to “ladies,” etc.,
above.—Tr.]

6
[Ver. 22.
כְּתָב here evidently
signifies the style of
writing peculiar to
each province. Thus the cuneiform differs according to the several districts
of the Persian empire.—Tr.]

EXEGETICAL AND
CRITICAL

Vers. 1–8. The King’s
Banquet.—The point of departure in this
history is formed by a feast at which Ahasuerus was unexpectedly humbled and
provoked to wrath, while purposing to show his great majesty.

Ver. 1. Now it came to pass,etc.
The sentence begun here, in its chief fact really follows ver. 3. There it
is stated that Ahasuerus made a feast in the third year of his reign. The
ו at the beginning has not the conjunctive sense
that it has in Ezra 1:1, but stands more indefinite. A Hebrew would
understand this as a matter of which much had already been related, and of
which the following is only a continuation. Thus he would proceed often with
a
ו without attaching any definite meaning to it.
וַיְהִי has come to be a conventional formula for a beginning,
comp. Jonah 1:4; Ez. 1:1; Isa. 53:2, et al.Ahasuerus
(Achashverosh) written in cuneiform letters (comp. Lassen, Zeitschr. zur Kunde des M. L.
VI., p. 123 sqq.; Benfey, Die pers.
Keilin-schrift, p. 63 sqq) Khsy-arsha,
whence Cyax-ares
(comp. Dan. 9:1), or Khsay-arsha,
whence Xerxes
(comp. Ezra 4:6), early interpreted by Herodotus (6:98, etc), as meaning ἀρήϊοςaccording
to Spiegel (Eranische Altherthumskunde,
II. p. 377), a mighty man,
here does not mean, as in Dan. 9:1, Cyaxares
I, the father of Astyages, as Ferrand holds (Réflexions
sur la religion Chrétienne, I., p. 159), and
Des Vignoles (Chronol.
II., p. 274), and Nickes (De Estheræ libro,
I., p. 43–69) would have it, since they especially insist that, according to
chap. 2:5 sq., Mordecai belonged to the first period of the exile, and that
our book nowhere indicates that a new people had again arisen in Jerusalem.
Nor is the monarch referred to the same as
Astyages, as is asserted in the works referred
to in § 5; and still less Artaxerxes,
as Josephus assumes out of regard to the Septuagint version; but he is
certainly Xerxes,
as has been well proved by Scaliger (De emend,
temp., ed Genev., p. 591 sqq.); also by Justi
(in Eichhorn’s Repert.
XV., p. 338), and still more emphatically by Baumgarten (De
fide I. Esth., pp. 122–151, and in his
treatises respecting Cyrus the Great, in the
Stud. u. Krit., 1853, p. 624 sqq.). On the
different views in reference to Ahasuerus, see especially Feuardent on our
book, and Pfeiffer, Dubia vex,
p. 481 sqq. Against the identification with either Cyaxares or Astyages, are
the following facts: (1) Shushan was already the capital of the empire,
which it became through Cyrus (comp. Strabo, XV.); (2) the Persians are now
the chief people (comp. the frequent collection of
פָּרַם וּמָדַיe. g.,
in ch. 1:3); (3) the number seven indicates that of princes at the court of
the king (comp. chap. 1:14); (4) many other specifically Persian
peculiarities. Further, the empire at the time in question extended from
India to Æhiopia, and stretched also to the coasts and isles of the
Mediterranean sea (comp. chap. 1:1 and 10:1), as was the case since the time
of Darius Hystaspis. The Jews, moreover, are here represented as scattered
over all parts of the empire (comp. 3:7, 8) and particularly numerous in the
city of Shushan (comp. chap. 9:12, etc.).
On the contrary Artaxerxes is called in the Bible (in Ezra and Neh.) Artachsharshta
or Artachshasta.
For Xerxes, on the other hand, we may claim the identity of names (comp.
Ezra 9:6). In his favor is also the whimsical and tyrannical character
manifested by the Ahasuerus of Esther (chap. 1 and elsewhere). Besides,
there is the remarkable circumstance that Vashti was rejected in the third
year of Ahasuerus, although Esther was not made queen till the seventh year
of his reign, which in the case of Xerxes may be explained on the basis that
between his third and seventh year he made war on Greece.﻿*
The clause beginning with
הוּא (comp. Gen. 2:11) and referring us back—this
is Ahasuerus which reigned from India even unto Ethiopia,etc.—is
no doubt intended to designate Ahasuerus more distinctly,†
but at the same time to make known his greatness of dominion and power. Thus
the danger that threatened the Jews, as well as the elevation of Esther and
Mordecai, and of the Jews through these, is more powerfully brought out.
הֹדּוּ stands for the original
הֹנְדּוּ, as Hidku
in the cuneiform inscriptions of the Persians stands for Hindhu (in Zend and Syrian
Hendu), and is
therefore India,
in the Sanscrit
Sindhu which is really the river Indus, then the inhabitants
along the Indus, and at last the land of the Indus (comp. Lassen, Judische Altherthumskunde, I.,
p, 2); so also in the Vedas Sapta Sindhavas,
or “the seven streams,” really stand for India (comp. Rödiger in Gesen.
Thesaurus,
Append. p. 83). The o
sound in
הֹדּוּ, and the tone falling on the first syllable
are quite remarkable, but perhaps only a provincialism. Herodotus testifies
to the great extension of the Persian empire under Xerxes, and in chap. 12:9
he rays that Mardonius reported to Xerxes that the Saccœ and Assyrians, as
well as the Indians and Æthiopians, had been conquered. See also 7:97, 98,
and 8:65, 69, where the Æthiopians and Indians are enumerated as being under
tribute. According to Arrian, Cyrus extended his conquests up to India, and
the people of the Açvaka were by him made to pay tribute. Darius added still
greater parts of northwestern India to the Persian empire (comp. Duncker,
Gesch. d. Altherthums,
3d ed., II., page 468). The auxiliary sentence: A hundred and seven and twenty provinces,
is merely to be regarded as an additional sentence in loose apposition, to
indicate what provinces were included in the region just mentioned. If this
sentence depended upon
הַמֹּלֵךְ, it should have
עַל [or
בְּ] before it. According to Herod. III. 89 sqq.,
Darius Hyst. on account of the raising of taxes divided the empire into
twenty ἀρχαί
which were termed
σατραπΐηαι. A further division into lesser
portions was not thereby excluded; with so many petty tribes and peoples
this came as a matter of course. So there were contained in the fifth
satrapy (comp. Herod. III. 91) a small Jewish people, a separate
מְדִינָה which really means a judicial or official
circuit (comp.
Ezra 2:1). Our 127 provinces remind us of the 120 Satraps whom Darius the
Mede placed over his empire (Dan. 6:2).

Ver. 2. In those days, when
the king Ahasuerus sat,etc.—Sitting
is a posture common to judges and kings, but more particularly
characteristic of the kings of Persia. The Persian kings are always painted
as sitting on a throne under a lofty canopy. This is true of them even in
the time of war, and in their journeys. Xerxes, indeed, was present in the
battles sitting; thus it was at Thermopylœ according to Herodotus (VII.
102), and at Salamis according to Plutarch (Themistocl.
13). See also Baumgarten, l. c.,
p. 85 sqq. Which was in Shushan the palace.—He
had a royal establishment in several cities; but at the time here referred
to it was in Shushan, which was his favorite winter and spring residence
(comp. Neh. 1:1). Æschylus calls it the palace ornate with gold of the
Cissians, and Strabo asserts that every Persian king built his own palace
there.
מַלְכוּת was in use in later language, and
מַמְלָכָה in earlier times.

Ver. 3. In the third year of
his reign he made a feast,etc.—All
his princes and servants, for whom this feast was made, are specified as
follows : The power of Persia and Media, the
nobles and princes of the provinces (being) before him.—These
words form an explanatory sentence, and assert distinctly that all the
princes and servants were really gathered around Xerxes. We are to
understand by the “power,” the representatives of the same, who probably
consisted of the body-guard of the king, which formed the flower of the
entire army-power. According to Herod. VII. 40 sqq., this was in itself
sufficiently large, and consisted of two thousand picked horsemen, two
thousand lancers, and ten thousand common foot-soldiers. The
פַּרְתְּמִים who are mentioned also in chap.6:9,
and Dan. 1:3, were the principes,
chief men (in Sanscrit we find it parthama
= “first;” in the Behistun Inscription fratama,
in Pehlevi pardom),
i.e., the
magnates. [“It is a superlative from a root fra,
equivalent to the Greek
πρό, “before.”—Rawlinson]. The princes of the
provinces are the Pashas or governors of those one hundred and twenty-seven
provinces. That
פָּרַם is more correct than
פָּרָם has been mentioned in the note on Ezra 1:1.

Ver. 4. When he shewed the
riches of his glorious kingdom,etc.—Keil
connects these words with the inserted explanatory sentence, “the
power—before him,” and thus he gets the sense, not that the feast itself, at
which Xerxes showed his riches, lasted one hundred and eighty days, but that
he prepared a feast for the army lasting seven days, after they had viewed
his riches for one hundred and eighty days (ver. 5). But the connection of
our verse with the main assertion in ver. 3: “He made a feast” is much
closer; as may be seen in the fact that nearly all exegetes have declared
themselves for this rendering. Something again different seems to be meant
in the seven days’ feast of ver. 5, which Xerxes had caused to be made, not
for the army, but for all the people in Shushan the palace. The feast during
a hundred and eighty days may have been only for the purpose of
consultation, and the real feast may have followed in the seven days
succeeding. Keil’s objection, that then the mention of the preceding feast
of a hundred and eighty days was purposeless, does not hold, since the fact
that Xerxes could entertain his princes and servants so long, is a proof
also to the reader of his great riches. That such magnificent, long and
great feasts were very popular at the Persian court, is elsewhere stated
(comp. Duncker, as above, p. 609 sqq.). Herod. vii. 8 informs us that after
the re-subjection of Egypt, Xerxes called the magnates of his empire to
Shushan, in order to consult with them in reference to the campaign against
Greece; and in 7:2, he further states that the preparations for this
undertaking lasted four years. Hence the assumption is not unfounded that in
these long assemblages it was specially designed in the third year to
counsel together regarding the war with Greece. This is the more evident
since in the inserted clause of ver. 3 the power of the Medes and Persians
is prominently stated. If Xerxes ascended the throne in the year B. C. 486
then there were still three or four years until this happened. There were
three years until the battle of Salamis (480) beginning with his first year
of empire. Clericus asserts that these princes of the provinces could not
possibly have remained away so long a time as a hundred and eighty days from
their provinces and governmental activity. Hence he would have them
entertained one after the other; a view which is without foundation. They
doubtless had subordinate officers, who ranked high enough to take their
places for one half year.﻿*

Ver. 5. And when these days
were expired, the king made a feast to all the people.—This
does not, as Keil would have it, take up the third verse again, but forms
the transition from the counseling to the purely festive entertainment to
which the king invited (in addition to those already assembled to the army
and great rulers, comp. ver. 11) all the people at Shushan the palace.
מְלוֹאת is not an abstract form with an infinitive
signification, which would properly have to be punctuated thus
מְלוֹאֶת, as are
יְבשֶׁת ,שְׁכֹבֶת (comp. Ewald, § 239 a), but the
ו stands in the wrong place in the originally
defectively written
מְלֹאת (comp. Lev. 12:6), in order that it might
be known as having been added later (comp. Joh. 20:22).—To all these people
who were invited, belonged also the lower classes of servants, and probably
the common inhabitants likewise, as is evinced by the phrase both unto great and small—from
the highest to the lowest. But these were only the male population, as is
shown in ver. 9. In reference to
הַנִּמְצְאִים comp. the note on Ezra 8:25.
לְמִגָּדוֹל, with
לְ, as in 2 Chron. 15:13; without it 1 Sam.30:19.—In
the court of the garden of the king’s palace.—בִּיתָו
for
בַּיתִoccurs often in our book, but is found
connected with
גִּנַּת as also in chap. 7:7. The kingly palace or
series of houses was situated, in Oriental manner, as is customary also
to-day, in a large park (Xenoph. Cyrop.
I. 3, 12, 14).

Ver. 6. The language describing the court of the garden
where this entertainment took place, i.e.,
the tent-like, enclosed, and covered space of the park, specially prepared
for this festive occasion, and likewise the entertainment itself in vers. 7,
8, must be understood as explained by the exclamations of wonder, white, green, and blue (hangings),etc.,
these latter being employed as coverings.
חוּר designates the white cloths as to color, not
as to a certain quality of cloth; from
חָיַר, to be white.כַּרְשפָּם,
occurring in the Sanscrit, Pers., Armen., and Arab., corresponds to the
Greek κάρπασος;
designating cotton
cloth; and, because of the two preceding and corresponding words, a splendid
parti-colored fabric.
תְּכֵלֶת is the glistening blue-black hyacinth
color, and here means any kind of cloth which had this particular hue. White
and blue were, according to Curtius VI. 6, 4, the regal colors of Persia
(comp. also Duncker, as above, pp. 891 and 951). These cloths were held fast
(אָחוּז)
with cords to rings, and by these to the pillars.﻿*
The last words: The beds
(divans) were of gold and silver
(lying) upon a pavement of red and blue, and
white and black marble,etc.,
describe the seats for the guests. Gold and
silver here mean the cloths, which were woven
with gold and silver threads. Hence they were
brocades with which these divans were covered.
But they lay upon
רִצְפָּח, Sept. ἐπὶ λιθοστρώτου,
a tessellated (mosaic) flooring, which was formed of various kinds of
stones.
בַּהַט, in Arab., a false stone, accords to the
Sept., σμαραγδίτης,
a stone of a green color, similar to the emerald (smaragth), is perhaps
malachite or serpentine.
שֵׁשׁ is white marble;
דַּר, in Arab. darun
and darratun,
pearl, is, according to the Sept., πίννινος λίθος,
a stone similar to pearl, perhaps mother of pearl.
סֹחֶרֶת (from
שָׁחַר=סָחַר, dark),
is very likely black marble, with scutiform pots.﻿*

Ver. 7. And they gave (them)
drink in vessels of gold.—This actually
occurred, or was seen transpiring.
הַשְׁקוֹת, Infin. Hiph., is a substantive here.
The vessels being diverse one from another,
i.e., very
different drinking-vessels were in service. According to Xenoph. Cyrop. VIII. 8, 18, these
constituted an essential part of Persian luxury. And royal wine, i.e., such as was drunk
from the royal vaults, as especially costly, perhaps coming from Chalybon,
which it was usual for Persian kings to drink (comp. Ez. 27:18). In abundance, according to the state of the king.—כְּיַד,
according to the hand=power
of the king, means that the great quantity did honor to the power of the
king, or that it corresponded to the ability and riches of the king (comp.
chap. 2:18; 1 Kings 10:13; also Neh. 2:8).

Ver. 8. And the drinking was—i.e.,
went on—according to the law
(custom); none did compel,
etc.כַּדָּת
hardly means a law enacted for this special occasion; for this purpose the
expression would be too general;—but as custom, especially Persian royal
etiquette required. This means, not moderately
(as Clericus,—moralizing was not here intended), but on the contrary that
the guests in a courageous and vigorous carousing should show their
appreciation of the liberal hospitality of the king, and at the same time
evince their ability to do something in their drinking worthy of the royal
table. The Greeks knew how to do justice to hospitality (see Baumgarten, p.
12 sq.). While
דָּת was held to be a special law made for this
occasion, it was thought that its substance was contained in
אָנַם ,אֵין אֹנֵם being taken in the sense of
urging. The
meaning is that the drinking was not to occur, as was usually the case, in
compliance with the wishes or encouragements of the court officers. In
contrast with the customary excessive drinking, because of too frequent
urging, this should remain free to all to remain sober. While the
Septuagint, in a free rendering, has joined
אֵין אֹנֵם with
כַּדָּת (οὐ
κατὰ προκείμενον νόμον), the Vulgate has it thus:
“Nec erat, qui nolentes cogere ad bibendum.”
But the true interpretation of the phrase evidently is as already indicated;
every one having entire liberty to drink of the wine, without urging. The
whole tone of the passage expresses abundance and luxuriance: yet we need
not make “urging” out of
אָנַם, but rather “creating a real necessity,
preparing difficulty, standing in the way in a preventive manner.” In Dan.
4:6, at least, it has this signification. It may possibly be an additional
form for
אָנַשׁ (Hitzig on Ez. 24:17). At any rate it
frequently stands in the Targums for the Heb.
עָשַׁק ,גָּזַל, and
רָצַץ. That no one should hinder another in
drinking must have been self-evident and understood at a decently-conducted
feast. But here it is stated : For so the king
had appointed to all the officers of his house;
here not our own, but Persian customs, give the key. Besides there is a
negative hindrance in drinking, which obtains even among us, and which would
seem to have been necessary in a company where high and low mingled
together, namely that of not so frequently filling the cups.
יִסַּד means, as it does in 1 Chron. 9:22, arranging (ordering).
With
עַל it is, first of all, giving orders in reference
to or for some one.
רַב־הַבַּיִת = the chief of the house, i.e., court-officer.

Vers. 9–12. The Queen’s
Banquet, and her Refusal to appear in the Royal Presence.—The
festival of the king went hand in hand with that of the queen, which
doubtless was intended to bring into view at the same time the royal majesty
and magnificence. Usually the queen ate with her husband (see Herod. IX.
110), and even in greater feasts she was not under all circumstances
excluded, as is proved by the reference to Lucian by Brissonius, De regio Pers. princ. I.,
c. 103. At this time she was compelled to remain away, since she also gave
entertainment to the ladies. To permit the participation of women in all the
feasts of the men would certainly not have been very desirable, since it was
a mixed company.

Ver. 9. The name Vashti,
וַשְׁתִּי, has probably a connection with the
Old-Persian
vahista (“the best”), or with the related
behisht (“paradisiacus”);
comp. Pott, Ueber alt-pers. Eigennamen,
in the Zeitschrift, d.
D. M. G., 1859, p. 388. In modern Persian
Vashti signifies a beautiful woman.
Vashti gave the feast to the ladies in the king’s palace, i.e., either in her own
apartments, which also were in the royal residence, or in some other
dwellings there which were placed at her disposal for this festive
occasion.﻿*

Ver. 10. On the seventh day,
as the last of the feast, in which perhaps there was the greatest joviality.
When the heart of the king was merry with wine,i.e.,
well disposed, happy (כְּטוֹב,
as in 2 Sam. 13:18; Judg. 16:25;
טוֹב is the infin. constr. Kal, with an
intransitive signification), would grant a still greater favor to his
guests, and one too which he would not have been willing to grant in a more
sober mood. He turned to the seven eunuchs that served before him,
אֶת־פְּנֵי, together with
שֵּׁרֵת, as in 1 Sam. 2:18. Their names signify
nothing for the present purpose; and there are no certain data for their
interpretation.﻿*
But our author names them because they were transmitted to him, and in order
that the historical character of his narrative may be strengthened thereby.
Certain it is, they were the medium between the king and the ladies. They
were to transmit the commands of the former to the latter. Their number,
seven, has close
connection with that of the Amshaspands. This number was peculiarly sacred
to the Persians, see ver. 14.

Ver. 11. They were to bring the queen in the regal crown,
כֶּתֵר, κἰδαρις
or κίταρις,
i.e., in a high,
pointed turban, and consequently bring her in her entire royal apparel, in
order to show her beauty to the prince, as well as to the entire people, of
whom at least there were representatives present. Xerxes was desirous of
glory, not only because of his riches, but also because of his beautiful
wife.﻿†

Ver. 12. But the queen
Vashti refused to come.—בִּדְבַר
הַמֶּלֶךְ here has reference to the word of the
king, as in chap. 3:15; 8:14; 1 Ki. 13:1,8. By
(his) chamberlains,i.e.,
which was brought to her in a formal manner, and which therefore ought to
have been obeyed all the more (comp. ver. 15). Persian etiquette gave to
ladies, and especially to the queen, a certain reserve, and this under all
circumstances. It was regarded as something unheard of if the queen appeared
in public unveiled. But here, where there was no doubt of the fact that she
should become the gazing-stock of a drunken company, that, so to speak, she
should make a show of herself to the lascivious eyes of so many—according to
the extremely literal view of the Targums, she was to appear naked—she had a
right, indeed she was compelled to guard and keep in mind her dignity. There
is no doubt that as the queen she was safe from such shameless proceedings
as Herodotus (ver. 18) relates of Persian foreign ministers. But instead of
being rejoiced at the modesty of his queen the king felt deeply humbled in
the eyes of those to whom he would have shown himself in his highest glory.
It is possible, and even probable, that a well-known self-assertion of
Vashti had something to do in the matter. But this we need not necessarily
assume in connection with his peculiar character in order to explain his
wrath. Pride and self-exaltation perhaps so blinded him that he did not
dream of such a rebuff. Perhaps, too, she might have found some way, had she
been wise, in which without compromising herself she might have rendered
obedience. But however bad the fact, the unfavorable light does not fall on
her, but upon the king. He appears so thoughtless that one is quite prepared
to expect still other rash and inconsiderate acts from him.

Vers. 13–15. The King’s
Inquiry.—When the
king said to the wise men, which knew the times.—To
know the times means to judge the times as did the astrologers and
magicians, according to the heavenly phenomena, and to give counsel
corresponding thereto, (comp. Dan. 2:27; 5:15; Isa. 44:25; 47:13; Jer.
50:35). But it also means in a general sense to
be learned; for according to the expressions
following, these wise men were likewise those skilled in the law. For so, adds the author, (was)
the king’s manner toward all that knew law and
judgment.—דְּבַד
הַמֶּלֶךְ does not here mean the word of the king, for
then we might expect, instead of
לִפְנֵי, a preposition expressive of direction;
but it is a matter of the king, i.e.,
all that relates to the king, or what he undertakes.

Ver. 14. And the next to him
or standing nearest to him,—thus
the explanation becomes clear, were Carshena,
Shethar,etc.—There
is no doubt that all seven should be named as standing before the king, and
not the first only.﻿*
The sing.
הַקָּרֹכ אֵלָיו has application to the second and
third no less than to the first, and is, therefore, equal to a neuter
plural. The sense, however, is clear. By these words, the wise were meant,
the chief persons, who during and after consultation were to have a word
before the king in this matter. The clause
which saw the king’s face, expresses their
intimate relation to the king, and their great and high preference in an
especially significant manner, since the approach to the king was very
difficult. The seven princes that had conspired against the Pseudo-Smerdis
had a perfect understanding that it should be permitted them to enter at any
time into the presence of the king, who had been elected from their midst,
and that, too, without previous announcement (see Herod, iii. 84). But that
these princes themselves formed the court either before or after the event
spoken of here, although mentioned “as the seven princes of the Medes and
Persians,” is not to be assumed. Those seven before mentioned did not, as
did these, belong to the learned class, to the selected counsellors of the
king, although they had intercourse with the king. These were the seven
supreme counsellors (comp. Ezra 7:14), who formed a complement to the seven
Amshaspands.﻿†
The number seven, which is retained by the Persians in ver. 5, and again in
chap. 2:9, was originally instituted because of the seven planets, or the
weekly cycle, or finally with regard to the seven Amshaspands. Perhaps its
being composed of the numbers three and four gave it significance.
הַיּשְׁכִים רִאשֹׁנָה, first =presiding, is, first
of all, to preside, constituting the highest authority. The feminine
רִאשֹׁנָה is a substitute for the adverb (comp.
Gen. 33:2; Num. 2:9).

Ver. 15. First, here, the discourse of the king follows.
They are asked: What shall we do unto the queen
Vashti according to law?כְּדָת
is expressly prefixed here, and that without the article; hence, legally.Because she hath
not performed the commandment of the king Ahasuerus.—Thus
the king expresses himself, instead of simply saying: my word; since this was
just the matter that came into consideration, that it was the king’s word.
For the rest comp. ver. 12 and notes.

Vers. 16–20. The Courtier’s
Reply.—Memucan, although last mentioned among
the seven, is spokesman, doubtless after the wise men had had a
consultation. For
מומכן is here the same as
ממוכן in ver. 14, as is shown by the Keri. The
assumption is natural that the Scriptio defectiva
was really employed, and that the
ו was added later by the Masoretes. This is
evident, further, in ver. 5, where the full form is distinguished as having
been added by them at the wrong place. Feuardent thinks that, according to a
more general custom, the last of the seven responded first “lest he might
seem to say aught in view of the favor and protection of the chiefs and
elders, but on the contrary out of mere liberty, and the full determination
of his own will and judgment.” But Memucan seems to have spoken first not
only here, but also above; hence he seems to have been chairman (spokesman).
He judges the offense of the queen very strictly in order to justify a
severe verdict. But he also correctly premises that the offenses of persons
high in office, on account of the influence which their examples will have,
are punishable in a very high degree. Vashti
the queen hath not done wrong to the king only,etc.
—עָותַ
with
עַל occurs only here.﻿*

Ver. 17. For (this) deed of
the queen shall come abroad to all women.—יָצָא
with
עַל,usually with
אֶל־. They shall
despise, properly, make them to despise,
their husbands in their eyes.—Those
that despise are of course the wives, as is clear from the connection with
בְּאָמְרָם. The masc. form of the suffix is
substituted for the fem. form.

Ver. 18. (Likewise)
shall the ladies of Persia and Media say this
day unto all the king’s princes.הַיּוֹם
הַזֶה is used in its direct meaning. What the
speaker means to say is, as regards the rest of
the lower women, who were referred to in ver.
17. It may take a long time before the new law of the court shall have come
to the knowledge of all, because some will hear of it later. But the
princesses who live at the court and who have immediate news of Vashti’s
conduct, will relate what has been indicated in ver. 17. After
תֹּאמַרְנָה the same sentence is to be understood
as follows:
כְּאָמְרָם in ver. 17; for the last words of the
verse : Thus (shall there arise) too much
contempt and wrath, cannot be construed into
the definition of an object in view, as Bertheau would have it, as if the
Heb. stood before
כְּדַי only as an attachment to the long phrase,
but these form a separate sentence. The predicate; thus there shall arise,
must be supplied.
כְּדַי, really for a
sufficiency, is by litotes, e.g., “more than
enough.”

Ver. 19. This contains the verdict.—If
it please the king, let there go a royal commandment from him.—
טוֹב על occurs often in our book as also in Neh.
2:5.
דְּבַר מַלְכוּת, a
word of the kingdom or a king’s word (comp. ver.
8), hence first of all a royal order.And
let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, that it be
not altered,i.e.,
let it have express legal authority, so that it must remain unaltered (comp.
Dan. 6:9).﻿*﻿That
Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal
estate unto another that is better than she.—מַמְלָכָה
= מַלְכוּת(comp. ver. 2), royal state, royal government,
here means royal highness, dignity,
רְעוּתָהּ = her
female companions.טוֹב,
as to its connections, is especially referable to obedience. It may be that
Vashti was hated as being a proud, assuming person. But the severity of the
sentence against her is explainable also in this, that there remained no
alternative to the judges either to declare her innocent, which, as respects
Ahasuerus, they could not do, or to make her for ever harmless. Even if she
had again obtained an influence with the king, they would have had to expect
her wrath.

Ver. 20. We here notice the consequence of the decree of
the king.—And when the king’s decree, which he
shall make, shall be published —all the wives shall give to their husbands
honour,etc.
The predicate
נִשְׁמַע is chosen, since it makes a
presupposition for the
יִתְּנו which is expressed. It is first of all
neuter: when it shall be published
(heard).
פִּתְגָּם, as in Ezra 4:17.
אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׁה may mean: which he shall execute,
inasmuch as this decree would be sanctioned by the example of the king
himself; otherwise: which he shall decree.
Memucan reminds him of the greatness of the empire, since the success of the
punishment and its importance is connected with it.
לְמִגָּדוֹל, as in ver. 5.

Vers. 21, 22. The Decree
Issued. The king accepts the proffered counsel
and rejects Vashti; indeed he does even more. In order that her punishment
may become as well-known as her offense, he sends letters into all the
provinces;﻿*
and in order that these may be intelligible, he writes according to the
language of every province, and to every people in their own language.﻿†﻿That
every man should bear rule in his own house, and that it should be published
according to the language of every people.—לִהְיוֹת
does not really indicate the substance of what was written —this consists of
the rejection of Vashti and the reasons therefor —but only its aim. Yet this
object, strange as it may have sounded, has nevertheless received sufficient
prominence. Feuardent thinks that the edict may be explained on the ground
that there was too much petticoat government in Persia. But there exists no
proof of such an assertion. It is true, in chap. 5:10, that Haman drew his
wife into the council of consultation, but his friends first. It may be
asked, what is the sense and connection of the phrase, and (it) should be published according to the language of every
people. Older commentators and also Keil find
therein only a command, that a man in his own house should speak his own
native language. Hence if he was possessed of one or more foreign wives, who
spoke a different language, they should be compelled to learn his language
and speak only in it. Thereby the man was to show his authority as master of
his own house.﻿‡
But if we apprehend this decree in such a general manner, it would not only
have been a very peculiar, but also a separate edict, and it would apply in
fact to the rejection of queen Vashti, neither in its object, nor yet in its
communication. It might much better have read thus, “that the wives speak
the language of their husbands’ people.” Hence Bertheau, according to
Hitzig’s advice, changed
כִּלְשׁוֹן עַמּוֹ to
כָּל־שֹׁוֶה עִמּוֹ: (and
every one) shall
speak what to him is appropriate; but this
would introduce a thought foreign to the subject, and besides
שוה according to chap. 3:8, should have
לְ before it. Perhaps the meaning is this: that he speak, etc., in
short, that he have the right to use his people’s language in his own house,
even though he have a foreign wife; moreover that it is obligatory upon his
wife to so far learn the language of her husband that she may understand the
orders he may give in it. This phrase receives further light from the
consequence which would follow upon the usurpation of the wife, since she
would then compel her husband to learn her own language.

DOCTRINAL AND
ETHICAL

On vers. 1–12. 1. Ever and anon the question arises,
whether there is not upon earth somewhere, a condition of true satisfaction
and unclouded happiness. One very much desires such a state of things, and
one is tempted to believe it, especially when regard is had to the most
beautiful dreams of the past, which had the appearance of bright promises.
But this is not all. In spite of all assurances and experiences to the
contrary, one is ever inclined to think that the world, and especially its
lords, could give an affirmative answer to our question.

At the very beginning of our book there is unfolded to
our eyes a picture full of riches and affluence, full of splendor and glory.
Whatever is beautiful to look upon, whatever is enjoyable to the taste,
whatever could rejoice the heart and elevate the soul, is here combined. A
ruler, whose height of power leaves hardly anything to be desired, who has
united under his sceptre the most powerful, the richest, and most celebrated
nations, from India to Æthiopia, has called together the chief men of the
various countries, and they are gathered around him in the beautifully
situated and magnificently built city of the lilies, the most beautiful of
all Persian residences (comp. Neh. 1:1), there to revel in luxury and
enjoyment. He, it seems, is happy to be their ruler, and they are happy as
his subjects. At the same time the women are also called to this festive
enjoyment. The higher in station mingle on equal terms with those lower, and
all celebrate and enjoy the occasion together. It seems as if every one must
feel happy in his place. Yet the old adage asserts itself that the world,
the rich, the high, the proud world possesses least of that which we here
seek. It may be said, indeed, of this world alone, that it passes away with
all its pleasures, and that its apparent wealth at last becomes sheer
poverty. Ahasuerus, who is admired because of his greatness and lauded as
happy by so many, is deeply humiliated; a woman dares to defy his command,
and his joy is changed to anger and chagrin. Again, all the efforts that he
makes to remove the object of his disappointment serve but to complete his
misfortune. However widely and effectually his power may be felt, he is
still only a man, and as such he has human needs. The empire cannot displace
his house. All the wealth of earth cannot give him the joy that one person
does, who submits herself entirely to him. Her he cannot gain by his
measures, but rather she becomes for ever lost to him by those very
measures. Vashti, however, this second person at the highest point of
worldly glory, now sees the crown of her exalted station and her happiness
torn to pieces. For her the day of highest joy becomes the day of her
misfortune. The subjects; who had to bear the cost of these feastings, must
have groaned and sighed the most in advance, instead of rejoicing.
Feuardent: “David once called water blood, because it had been drawn at the
manifest risk of life on the part of his chieftains, and he therefore held
it wrong to drink of it. But. … from another’s hide, as the proverb goes,
since shoe-strings are cut by chiefs.”

1. There is but One, who—Himself ever blessed—can make
all kings and nations truly happy with the great wealth of His treasury. He
also will bring to pass that if those whose beauty ought to be His honor and
joy—mankind, whose love would have given Him more pleasure than a man would
find in the love of his wife— if these will not come to Him, will not honor
nor rejoice Him, indeed if all but one family desire each to go their own
way; yet has this its ground in His highest, in His most liberal greatness,
by which He has found means from the very beginning to unfold more and more
the wealth of His glorious kingdom, in contrast with such stubbornness, and
especially to reveal to us the riches of His grace.

2. Ahasuerus, or Xerxes, who had received this great and
powerful kingdom from Darius his father, and who now governed it in its
fullest extent, possessed the greatest glory among the people of his own
time and those succeeding, as being the greatest and most powerful king. And
in the feast, which in our chapter he instituted, he made it his special
business to maintain this distinction to its fullest extent. But it is this
very feast that while it reveals his greatness, also reminds us of his
weakness. Perhaps even then many of his friends felt that he did not quite
de-serve all the distinction that he claimed for himself. By reason of his
thoughtlessness and folly— and this may not have been the first time when
these were manifested, though he now revealed them in a more public manner
before the eyes of his princes—he demanded of the queen what was against all
custom and good breeding. This lapse in moral strength of which he was
guilty—in that he lived more for sensual gratification than for the duties
of his government—especially reveals the fact that, though never so mighty a
king and ruler, yet in fact in himself he was nothing more than a poor
slave.

3. While Ahasuerus was intent to show how far the limits
of his empire extended, by calling to his court the governors of the most
distant provinces, he found in close proximity, yea, in his very house,
insubordination to his will. Though he knew how to punish it, yet he could
not conquer it, nor turn it into obedience to his wishes.

There is, therefore, a power higher than that of man,
were he even the mightiest ruler of earth. Though the latter may prescribe
laws and issue commands, the former has long ago set in order His
ordinances, indeed stamped them on the very face of nature so deeply, so
ineffaceably and unchangeably, that in contrast with human commands, they
appear holy and irrefragable, and in case of a conflict bear away the palm
of victory. To obey human laws may be a sacred duty; but to follow dutifully
the eternally divine ordinances, is a holy and most glorious privilege,
which no one must permit to be abrogated. To disobey human commands may be
dangerous, may bring temporal disadvantage, but to despise God’s laws is
degrading, and will bring eternal ruin. If an earthly ruler with his laws
come into conflict with divine ordinances, he will begin a war in which he
will finally be destroyed. Feuardent: “Not even the heathens were unaware,
under the instruction of Plutarch, that a man ought to govern his wife as
the soul does the body, not as a master does a beast.”

Starke:
“Great pleasure is often followed by equally great displeasure. Occasions of
joyous feasting commonly end in sorrow (1 Macc. 9:41). Wine disperses sorrow
and rejoices the heart of man (Sir. 31:32 sq.). In a drinking-company all
kinds of useless counsels are generally brought forth (Wis. 2:10). Men with
men, women with women, thus it was among the heathen, and so should it also
be among us Christians. How much that is unchaste would thereby be avoided,
which is usually found in such gatherings (Sir. 19:2). Although beauty is a
gift of God, still one should not make a boast of it nor yet be proud (Prov.
31:30). Pride occasions much sorrow, and often plunges others into
destruction (Sir. 3:30; Prov. 29:23; 1 Pet. 5:5).”

On vers. 13–22. 1. The wise men, on whom Ahasuerus
depends to give a decision as to how Vashti should be treated, are both
judges and masters of ceremonies. They are to execute law and justice, but
they are also to see to it that court-etiquette be maintained. Instead of at
once following out the suggestions of his wrath, and doing what he thinks
best to be done, Ahasuerus subjects himself to an objective willpower,
namely that of law and custom. This in itself is great and beautiful. This
is the victory of culture over crudeness and passion. But in the manner in
which this is done here, it amounts to nothing after all. We seem to feel in
advance that nothing good will come of it. It sounds to us as if the advice
of Memucan came from a court of judgment: where what was held to be light is
changed into darkness, and what was deemed to be sweet is changed into
bitterness. The queen’s act, which was at the most but a trivial mistake, is
now stamped as a dark crime, and this sentence is supported by them with
learned reasons and wise references. There is guardianship of justice and of
morals which is nothing more than hypocrisy, by means of which injustice and
violence are made a cloak for the performance of abominable deeds. Hence we
must seek to know, not what pleases man, but what pleases God. What is good
and beautiful in itself is to be sought after. Feuardent: “All might have
been explained in a milder sense, and a reasonable excuse might have been
offered. She was forbidden to enter that promiscuous assembly by the very
modesty which is a woman’s chief ornament.”

2. However wisely the counsellors of Ahasuerus counsel
together, yet all their wisdom in truth is nothing but folly; to such a
degree as to cause us to smile, but yet pity. They would forestall the
assumptions of the women, and would protect the respect due to men. They
suppose that they firmly ground the honor of man, if they suppress the
rights of woman. They do not perceive that if they compel woman to be
subject to them, even to the sacrifice of her modesty, they will divest her
of all humanity, and thereby make her truly and offensively bold and
arrogant. Ahasuerus appears equally foolish. By not rendering a decision
himself, but deferring to his court for judgment, he would protect himself
from the reproach of cruelty and blind passion. But the real responsibility
nevertheless falls upon him. Nor does he by any means guard himself against
the great loss of a wife, of whom he has been so proud, and whose merits he
will so soon be compelled to recognise. Now the question remains, Were other
heathen princes or judges really any wiser? We know that it has ever pleased
God to bring to shame the wisdom of the world; and we would not hazard much,
were we to say that the folly of Ahasuerus and his counsellors would be
found repeated more or less in all human measures and arrangements which
have not proceeded from a fear of God, but have reference solely to human
desire, inclination, and advantage. The divine law only is truly wise, and
those who are led thereby are surely protected from loss. Though that law
pronounces sentence of banishment against those who are rebellious, still it
is just; and even those so banished, if they but come to themselves and look
within, must recognise its justice. It only rejects these, to make room for
all those who do turn within and strive to give place to grace.

Starke:
“Vers. 13–15. ‘For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God’
(Jas. 1:20). Vers. 16–18. Thus it is ever in the world: as long as one is
able to stand, others run to aid, knowing that their help is not needed.
When, however, signs of falling are seen, all help to push him down. Ver.
19. True counsellors must set aside all respect for private interests, they
must keep their eyes fixed upon public dangers. They must exert themselves
to avert general misfortune, though thereby they even endanger their own
welfare. Oh that all great lords would have respect to the laws of the great
God, as they desire to have their
laws respected! God’s law is truly of such a nature and obligatory character
upon us that it neither can nor should be changed. Vers. 20, 21. This is the
manner of all great lords; when their honor is insulted, they are very
severe, and promptly bring their laws into execution. But when God’s honor
is insulted, then they are easily quieted, and can readily and quickly
change their purposes.”

4
[Ver. 3.
פַרְתְּמִים, a Persian word Hebraized. As
it is here in the “absolute form,” it does not qualify “provinces”
following, but stands as an official designation, probably of civil
rank at court.—Tr.]

5
[Ver. 18. The English Version
has unwarrantably transposed this clause (“which have heard,” etc.), which
belongs to “ladies,” etc.,
above.—Tr.]

6
[Ver. 22.
כְּתָב here evidently signifies the style of writing
peculiar to each province. Thus the cuneiform differs according to
the several districts of the Persian empire.—Tr.]

*
[We condense the following
summary of the argument on the identity of the Ahasuerus of the book
of Esther, from McClintock & Strong’s
Cyclop. s. v. Ahasuerus. “From the
extent assigned to the Persian empire (Esth. 1:1), ‘from India even
unto Ethiopia,’ it is proved that Darius Hystaspis is the earliest
possible king to whom this history can apply, and it is hardly worth
while to consider the claims of any after Artaxerxes Longimanus. But
Ahasuerus cannot be identical with Darius, whose wives were the
daughters of Cyrus and Otanes, and who in name and character equally
differs from that foolish tyrant. Josephus (Ant.
XI. 6,1)makes him to be Artaxerxes Longimanus; but as his twelfth
year (Esth. 3:7) would fall in B. C. 454, or 144 years after the
deportation by Nebuchadnezzar, in B. C. 598 (Jer. 52:28), Mordecai,
who was among those captives (Esth. 2:6), could not possibly have
survived to this time. Besides, in Ezra 7:1–7, 11–26, Artaxerxes, in
the seventh
year of his reign, issues a decree very favorable to the Jews, and
it is unlikely, therefore, that in the
twelfth (Esth. 3:7) Haman could speak
to him of them as if he knew nothing about them, and persuade him to
sentence them to an indiscriminate massacre. Nor is the disposition
of Artaxerxes Longimanus, as given by Plutarch and Diodorus (XI.
71), at all like that of this weak Ahasuerus. It therefore seems
necessary to identify him with Xerxes, whose regal state and affairs
tally with all that is here said of Ahasuerus (the names being, as
we have seen, identical); and this conclusion is fortified by the
resemblance of character, and by certain chronological indications
(see Rawlinson’s Hist. Evidences,
p. 150 sq.). As Xerxes scourged the sea, and put to death the
engineers of his bridge because their work was injured by a storm,
so Ahasuerus repudiated his queen, Vashti, because she would not
violate the decorum of her sex, and ordered the massacre of the
whole Jewish people to gratify the malice of Haman. In the third
year of the reign of Xerxes was held an assembly to arrange the
Grecian war (Herod.
VII. 7 sq.); in the third year of Ahasuerus was held a great feast
and assembly in Shushan the palace (Esth. 1:3). In the seventh year
of his reign Xerxes returned defeated from Greece, and consoled
himself by the pleasures of the harem (Herod.
IX. 108); in the seventh year of his reign ‘fair young virgins were
sought’ for Ahasuerus, and he replaced Vashti by marrying Esther.
The tribute he ‘laid upon the land and upon the isles of the sea’
(Esth. 10:1) may well have been the result of the expenditure and
ruin of the Grecian expedition.”—Tr.]

†
[The principal purpose of this
clause is to distinguish the Achashverosh in question from all other
Persian monarchs bearing that general or regal title, by adding the
extent of his dominion. It thus becomes, as was evidently intended,
an important chronological datum.—Tr.]

*
[“We are not obliged to suppose
that all or any of the governors were present during the whole
period of festivity. Rather we may conclude that the time was
extended in order to allow of the different persons making their
appearance at the court successively.”
Rawlinson.—Tr.]

*
[“Nothing could be more
appropriate than this method at Susa and Persepolis, the spring
residences of the Persian monarchs.… A massive roof, covering the
whole expanse of columns, would be too cold and dismal; whereas
curtains around the central group would serve to admit both light
and warmth.” Loftus. —TR]

*
[Herodotus mentions (IX. 80–82)
the immense quantities of gold and silver vessels of various
kinds—which we know from the monuments were of the most elegant
style and costly ornamentation—together with couches and tables of
the precious metals, besides various colored awnings (παραπετάματα),
which Xerxes carried with him on his expedition to Greece.—Tr.]

*
[“If the Ahasuerus of Esther is
rightly identified with Xerxes, Vashti should be Amestris, whom the
Greeks regard as the only legitimate wife of that monarch, and who
was certainly married to him before he ascended the throne. In that
case the name may be explained either by corruption of Amestris, or
as a title; and it may be supposed that the disgrace recorded was
only temporary; Amestris in the latter part of Xerxes’ reign
recovering her former dignity.”
Rawlinson.—Tr.]

*
[“ These names, being those of
eunuchs, are not unlikely to be of foreign origin. They have
generally but little resemblance to known Persian names.”
Rawlinson.—Tr.]

†
“It has been said that this is
invariable, and indicates an ignorance of Persian customs on the
part of the author. But even De Wette allows that such an act is not
out of harmony with the character of Xerxes (Einleitung,
§ 198, a, note 6); and it is evidently related as something strange
and unusual. Otherwise the queen would not have refused to come.”
Rawlinson.—Tr.]

*
[“These names have a general
Persian cast, though they are difficult of identification. They have
probably suffered to some extent for corruption (i.e.,
transcription into Hebrew); and perhaps they were not even at first
very close to the Persian originals. In Marsena we may
perhaps recognize the famous Mardonius,
and in Admatha
Xerxes’ uncle, Artabanus.”
Rawlinson.—Tr.]

†
[“According to Herodotus (ΙΙΙ.
84), there were seven families of the first rank in Persia, from
which alone the king would take his wives. Their chiefs were
entitled to have free access to the king’s person. The Be-histun
Inscription, which gives Darius six coadjutors in his conspiracy,
confirms the Greek writer.”
Rawlinson —Tr.]

*
[“It is not surprising that the
judgment delivered by Memucan was one of condemnation, for it was
rarely indeed that any Persian subject ventured to offer opposition
to the mildest caprice or to the most extravagant whim of the
monarch. (See Herodotus ΙΙΙ. 31, 35).”
Rawlinson.—Tr.]

*
[“The theoretical inviolability
of the laws of the Persians is often touched on by the Greek
writers. Practically the monarch, if he chose, could always dispense
with the law. It was therefore quite within his power to restore
Vashti to her queenly dignity, notwithstanding the present decree,
if he so pleased.”
Rawlinson—Tr.]

*
[“The Persian system of posts is
described with some minuteness both by Herodot. (VIII. 98) and
Xenophon (Cyrop.
VIII. 6). The incidental notices in this Book (see chaps. 3:12–15;
8:9–14) are in entire harmony with the accounts of the classical
writers. Herodotus describes the system as in full operation under
Xerxes.” Rawlinson.—Tr.]

†
[The practice of the Persians,
to address proclamations to the subject-nations in their own speech,
and not merely in the language of the conqueror, is illustrated by
the bilingual and trilingual inscriptions of the Achæmonian
monarchs, from Cyrus to Artaxerxes Ochus, each inscription being of
the nature of a proclamation.”
Rawlinson—Tr.]

‡
[“This decree has been called
‘absurd’ and ‘quite unnecessary in Persia’ (Davidson). If the
criticism were allowed, it would be sufficient to observe that many
absurd things were done by Xerxes (see Herod. VII. 35; IX. 108–111).
But it may be questioned whether the decree was unnecessary. The
undue influence of women in domestic, and even in public affairs, is
a feature of the ancient Persian monarchy. Herodotus tells us that
Alesia ‘completely ruled’ Darius (VII., 3). Xerxes himself was. in
his later years, shamefully subject to Amestris (ib.
IX., 111). The example of the court would naturally infect the
people. The decree, therefore, would seem to have been not so much
an idle and superfluous act as an ineffectual protest against a real
and growing evil.”
Rawlinson.—Tr.]